Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/23/09 11:16 PM):
>
>> This issue seems to come down to a matter of preference. The SVG WG
>> sees disadvantages in such whitelisting, and doesn't see value in it.
>> Modulo some technical reason, we still oppose the inclusion of
>> whitelists, and ask instead that wording similar to what we've proposed
>> be used to solve the issue. [1][2]
>>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-attribute-name
>> [2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-element-name
>
> Woah, how are we supposed to reason about what the parser requires if we
> don't actually list the tags explicitly? It seems dangerous to not make
> the list explicit. I'd be far more concerned about us accidentally
> introducing tags that we didn't intend to introduce if we didn't have to
> make sure we kept a list up to date.
>
> This also moves the burden of listing the tag names from us to the
> implementors, which would inevitably be a source of bugs.
Who said it shouldn't be an explicit list? You think the explicit list
should be in the HTML 5 spec, which risks getting out of sync with the
SVG spec, and the SVG WG thinks that the explicit list should be in the
SVG specs, where the elements and attributes are actually defined.
Where would the confusion and bugs come in?
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs